2017 Legislation

AVFCA Bills Supported and Opposed

i 3 Table of Contents

2017 CA Legislation Followed

In 2017, AVFCA Supported:

     CA SB210 Clean Water in Schools Act (Leyva)

     CA AB746 Public health: potable water: lead testing: schoolsites and campuses (Gonzalez Fletcher)

     CA SB504 Protecting Californians from Synthetic Food Dyes Act (Wieckowski)

     CA SB258 Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017 (Lara)

     CA SB602 Pesticides: neonicotinoids: labeling (B. Allen)

     CA SB746 Pupil health: physical examinations (Portantino)

     CA AB14 Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign disclosures (Gomez)

     CA SB651 Initiative, referendum, and recall petitions: circulators (Allen)

In 2017, AVFCA Opposed:

     CA SB18/SCR41 Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of California: joint legislative committee (Pan)

     CA SB426 Community-based home visitation pilot program (Pan)

     CA SB443 Optometry: scope of practice (Salas)

     CA SB649 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (Hueso)

     (With Requested Amendments) CA SB382 Pest control: mosquito abatement (Pan)

      CA SB457 Out-of-Hospital Childbirths: physicians and surgeons: licensed midwives: certified nurse-midwives (Bates)

In 2017, AVFCA is Watched:

     (With Requested Amendments) CA AB1098 Child death investigations: review teams (McCarty & Arambula)

      CA AB1520 Pulling Children Out of Poverty (Burke)

      CA AB992 CalWORKs: Baby Wellness and Family Support Home Visiting Program (Arambula)

      CA SB562 Single Payer Healthcare (Lara and Atkins)

      CA AB165 Privacy: electronic communications: exclusions: local educational agencies (Cooper)

AVFC Supported:

CA SB210 Clean Water in Schools Act (Leyva)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB210
Originally, this bill aimed to ensure that water in schools throughout California is free from elevated levels of lead by requiring schools to test their water fixtures, provide lead free water for students, and inform parents of lead contamination.
AVFCA Position: Support (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter of support for SB210)
Status: Died (Gut and amended to different bill).

CA AB746 Public health: potable water: lead testing: schoolsites and campuses (Gonzalez-Fletcher)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB746
This bill was amended through its passage and now requires a community water system that serves a schoolsite of a local educational agency with a building constructed before January 1, 2010, to test for lead in the potable water system of the schoolsite before January 1, 2019. The bill would require the community water system to report its findings to the schoolsite, as specified, and, if the schoolsite’s lead level exceeds a certain level, to test a water sample from the point at which the schoolsite connects to the community water system’s supply network. The bill would require the local educational agency, if the lead level exceeds the specified level at a schoolsite, to notify the parents and guardians of the pupils who attend the schoolsite or preschool. The bill would require the local educational agency to take immediate steps to make inoperable and shut down from use all fountains and faucets where the excess lead levels may exist and would require the local educational agency to work with the school site to ensure that a potable source of drinking water is provided for students.
AVFCA Position: Support (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter of support for SB746)
Current Status: Chaptered.

CA SB504 Protecting Californians from Synthetic Food Dyes Act (Wieckowski)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB504
This bill requested a report on if and how synthetic dyes adversely affect some children’s behavior, and what if any risk management options are available to the legislature.
AVFCA Position: Support, with possible amendments (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter of support for SB504)
Current Status: Died in Senate Appropriations Committee.

CA SB258 Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017 (Lara)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB258
This bill required a manufacturer of a cleaning product, as defined, that is manufactured or sold in the state on or after January 1, 2018, to disclose ingredients or contaminants contained in and health impact information related to the cleaning product on the product label, post the cleaning product ingredient information on the manufacturer’s Internet Web site, and include specified information on the cleaning product’s label concerning ingredients or contaminants of concern contained in the cleaning product, including Internet Web sites where more information may be found.
AVFCA Position: Support (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter of support for SB258)
Current Status: Chaptered.

CA SB602 Pesticides: neonicotinoids: labeling (B. Allen)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB602
Originally, this bill required labeling, as specified, of commercially available seeds and plants sold at retail establishments, excluding noxious weed seeds and plants, that have been treated with a neonicotinoid pesticide. The bill would specify that a violation of this requirement is not a crime but would constitute an unfair and unlawful business act or practice.
AVFCA Position: Support, with possible amendments (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter of support for SB602)
Current Status: Died (Gut and amended to different bill).

CA SB746 Pupil health: physical examinations (Portantino)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB746
This bill specifically authorized Nurse Practitioners (NP), Naturopathic Doctors (ND), and Doctors of Chiropractic (DC) to perform Pre-performance Physical Examinations (PPE) for students participating in interscholastic sports.  Current law does not specifically discriminate against the above-mentioned providers performing PPEs and these practitioners have been legally performing PPEs for 30 years. The need for this bill arises due to the omission of NPs, NDs and DCs from the list of providers included in the California education code. This omission creates confusion and leaves school districts uncertain as to their potential vulnerability when accepting exams from omitted practitioners.
AVFCA Position: Support (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter of support for SB746)
Current Status: Died (Gut and amended to different bill).

CA AB14 Political Reform Act of 1974: campaign disclosures (Gomez)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB14
This bill would have contributed to the ongoing effort for transparency in campaign contributions.  As our culture evolves, the avenues for contributing to campaigns and legislation evolves as well.  Contributions come in a variety of forms as the spectrum of campaigning expands to alternative methods.  Campaign expenditures can often mask the contributions of major campaign donors.  AB14 more accurately defines the parameters of campaign contributors and qualifying campaign expenditures.
AVFCA Position: Support (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter of support for AB14)
Current Status: Died.

CA SB651 Initiative, referendum, and recall petitions: circulators (B. Allen)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB651
This bill would have advanced the need for greater transparency in the initiative, referendum, and recall petition process. It will not impede the petitioning process nor impact the process fiscally.  It solely calls for the disclosure of persons and/or entities funding the circulation of petitions in an effort to encourage transparency and choice for registered voters.  Full disclosure of the financial contributors to any legislation needs to be present at every stage of the legislative process.
AVFCA Position: Support (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter of support for SB651)
Current Status: Died.

AVFC Opposed:

CA SB18/SCR41 Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of California: joint legislative committee (Pan)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB18 and http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SCR41
The bill request itself was benign, asking for the creation of a Joint Legislative Committee on Children and Youth, consisting of 9 Senators and 9 Assembly members, which will “develop “California’s Promise to its Children and Youth,” a framework for the care and welfare of the state’s children and youth in various contexts, including, but not limited to, health care, nutrition, homeless assistance, education, and foster care, to serve as an example to other states by raising the standard of living for California’s children and youth.”  However, its intention is far from benign – in short, if  passed, it would allow the state of California to create policy around what is in a child’s best interest, not the parent.  While we all want kids to be safe and healthy, it is the parents decision, not the states, how to raise a child. It also has a sneaky and unusual language which would question the integrity of the legislative process and set dangerous precedent.  For more info and flyers to share, please go to www.SB18.info
AVFCA Position: Opposes (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter of opposition for SB18 and SCR41)
Current Status: SB18 died.  SCR41 could be referred to another committee at any time.

CA SB426 Community-based home visitation pilot program (Pan)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB426
The bill would have, only until January 1, 2022, established the Community-Based Home Visitation Program as a pilot program in no more than 3 counties representing a cross section of the state to provide child abuse and neglect prevention and intervention services to families through one family resource center located in each county.  However, Legislative Counsel’s Digest indicates that “this bill would require particular focus on independently evaluated program models with regards to the office’s development of the proposed criteria for awarding the implementation grants in accordance with each plan’s addressing of these elements.” The SB426 Fact Sheet states SB426 “seeks to establish a pilot program to implement the Community Based Home Visitation Pilot Program based on the Sacramento County Birth & Beyond Family Resource Center model. This program, as modeled in the bill, utilized community members trained through AmeriCorps” (California Volunteers) “to deliver intensive home visitation services and outreach to families.” Additionally, “The Pilot Program to be established under SB 426 seeks to implement this model under three family resource centers around the state to test its effectiveness and scalability for long-term implementation as a statewide approach to home visitation”. For more info and flyers to share, please go to www.SB426.info
AVFCA Position: Opposes (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter of opposition for SB426).
Current Status: Died.

CA AB443 Optometry: scope of practice (Salas)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB443
The bill revised the scope of the practice of optometry.  In doing so, SEC. 2. Section 3041 (f) of the Business and Professions Code, would allow AB443 would grant optometrists the ability to administer vaccines for influenza, herpes zoster virus, and pneumococcus to adults.  We are very concerned about this section of the bill as we do not believe these patients will be given adequate informed choice or that optometrists will have adequate medical history or be adequately trained in recognizing or responding to adverse effects of the vaccines.  .
AVFCA Position: Opposes, unless amended to remove SEC. 2. Section 3041 (f) of the Business and Professions Code, thereby removing the section which would allow optometrists to administer vaccines in their practice. (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter of opposition for SB443).
Current Status: Chaptered.

CA SB649 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (Hueso)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB649
The bill would have put cell towers on every block in every neighborhood and countryside in California.  SB 649 will deregulate the telecom industry.  SB 649 will eliminate public input and local zoning authority with an over the counter permit process to install or modify cell towers.  Cell antennas will hang in clusters on utility or light poles. Equipment cabinets the size of refrigerators, with cooling fans and back-up generators, will sit on sidewalks.
AVFCA Position: Opposes (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter of opposition for SB649).
Current Status: Vetoed by Govenor.

CA SB382 Pest control: mosquito abatement (Pan)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB382
This bill would have created the California Mosquito Surveillance and Research Program Account, to be administered by the department, to fund California-based surveillance and research on mosquitoes. The bill would appropriate $2,000,000 from the General Fund to the account, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would require that $1,500,000 of that money be used to fund the California Vectorborne Disease Surveillance System, known as CalSurv, to perform specified functions.  Section I, Chapter 2 2101 (b) (5) enables the California Mosquito Surveillance and Research Program, CalSurv, to “perform other duties as necessary to protect the public and agricultural health of the state.”  The language in this section is broad and unnecessary, and leaves the door wide open for any and all abatement measures to be taken.  Inclusion of broad language has the potential to result in far reaching implementation of policies outside the intent of this bill and may require future legislation to redefine the original role and intent of the program.
AVFCA Position: Opposed, unless amended to remove Section I, Chapter 2 2101 (b) 5. (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter requesting amendments for SB382)
Current Status: Died.

CA SB457 Out-of-Hospital Childbirths: physicians and surgeons: licensed midwives: certified nurse-midwives (Bates)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB457
This bill would have significantly limiedt access to out-of-hospital maternity and reproductive healthcare.  It would severely reduce the scope of practice for both Licensed Midwives and Certified Nurse-Midwives and would drastically restrict access to out-of-hospital maternity care for all families in CA. It would:
– Mandate women with potential risk factors who are planning an out-of-hospital birth must undergo a medical examination by an OB/GYN and seek their permission to remain under midwifery care. Midwives who continue to provide care without physician permission will be charged with unprofessional conduct.
– Deny out-of-hospital midwifery care to women who have had either a cesarean section or any other previous abdominal surgery, regardless of whether or not it presents additional risk for childbearing.
– Mandate women give birth in a hospital if they live more than 20 minutes from a hospital, and would strike down current law that gives Licensed Midwives the legal ability to obtain both routine and life-saving tests and medications.
– Strike down current law allowing Licensed Midwives and Certified Nurse Midwives practicing out-of-hospital to provide family planning services.
AVFCA Position: Opposed
Current Status: Died.

AVFC Watched:

CA AB1098 Child death investigations: review teams (McCarty and Arambula)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1098
This bill would have required each county in CA to develop a protocol to be used as a guideline by persons performing autopsies on children to assist coroners and other persons who perform autopsies in the identification of child abuse or neglect, in the determination of whether child abuse or neglect contributed to death or whether child abuse or neglect had occurred prior to but was not the actual cause of death, and in the proper written reporting procedures for child abuse or neglect, including the designation of the cause and mode of death. The bill would additionally require the protocol described above to include data collection, confidentiality, and reporting provisions. The bill would require that data collection process to include specified information about a deceased child including, among other things, race, age, and cause of death.
AVFCA Position: Watching, with requested amendments to include medical history in the data collection process (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter requesting amendments to AB1098)
Current Status: Died.

CA AB992 CalWORKs: Baby Wellness and Family Support Home Visiting Program (Arambula)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB992
This bill would have established the Baby Wellness and Family Support Home Visiting Program that would require CalWORKS to develop and disseminate an informing notice to ensure that all assistance units, as specified, are aware of the program and their ability to participate. The bill would require the department, in consultation with specified persons and entities, to collect specified data and compile and distribute the data to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature by January 30 of each year. The bill would require counties to identify persons eligible for the program and invite them to participate in the program.
AVFCA Position: Watching, after it was amended to include our requested amendments to include specific opt-in letter and specification that declining services will have no negative impact (Click here to view AVFCA’s letter requesting amendments for AB992)
Current Status: Died.

CA AB1520 Lifting Children and Families Out of Poverty Act of 2017 (Burke)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1520
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations regarding child poverty in CA with the intent of the Legislature to move toward reducing child poverty in this state by 50% over a 20-year period.  The bill would set forth certain programs, services, and expenditures that the Legislature should consider for purposes of making appropriations on an annual basis, except as specified. The bill would require the annual Budget Act passed by the Legislature to contain a statement specifying how expenditures in the Budget Act comply with the framework.  This bill would also establish the Lifting Children and Families Out of Poverty Task Force, consisting of specified stakeholders, for purposes of researching, analyzing, and providing guidance to the Legislature in making appropriations pursuant to the framework and in supporting California’s efforts on lifetime wellness, self-sufficiency, and economic strength in families and communities throughout the state.
AVFCA Position: Watching, to ensure informed consent and transparency for health care and nutrition programs is safeguarded
Current Status: Chaptered.

CA SB562 The Healthy California Act (Lara and Atkins)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB562
This bill, the Healthy California Act, would have created the Healthy California program to provide comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage and a health care cost control system for the benefit of all residents of the state.
AVFCA Position: Watching, to ensure informed consent and transparency for health care (especially vaccination) and nutrition programs is safeguarded
Current Status: Died.

CA AB165 Privacy: electronic communications: exclusions: local educational agencies (Cooper)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB165
This bill would have amended the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which prohibits a government entity, as defined, from compelling the production of, or access to, electronic communication information or electronic device information, as defined, without a search warrant, wiretap order, order for electronic reader records, or subpoena issued pursuant to specified conditions, except for emergency situations, as defined. That law also specifies the conditions under which a government entity may access electronic device information by means of physical interaction or electronic communication with the device, such as pursuant to a search warrant, wiretap order, or consent of the owner of the device.  AB165 would specify that a government entity could do the same for a device where the owner or authorized possessor of the device is a pupil enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade when investigating alleged or suspected pupil misconduct pursuant to specified provisions.
AVFCA Position: Watching, to ensure student records, including medical records, are kept as private.
Current Status: Died.

 

Bill of Rights for Children and Youth in California SB18 (Pan) – AVFCA Opposes

A Voice for Choice Advocacy Opposes SB18 (details below). We stand with other organizations who have voiced their opposition to SB18:

Click here (English/Español) to print Flyer Opposing SB18 to share our Activist Flyer with all who should be concerned with the loss of our rights. For a full legislative package to share with your Senator and Assembly Member, click here. See below how you can take action.

SB18, the CA Children’s and Youth Bill of Rights Act was introduced December 5, 2016 by Senator Pan (SB277 Author), and was amended April 3, 2017. SB18 Bill Text: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB18. While the bill request itself is benign, asking for the creation of a Joint Legislative Committee on Children and Youth, consisting of 9 Senators and 9 Assembly members, which will “develop “California’s Promise to its Children and Youth,” a framework for the care and welfare of the state’s children and youth in various contexts, including, but not limited to, health care, nutrition, homeless assistance, education, and foster care, to serve as an example to other states by raising the standard of living for California’s children and youth.” In short, if passed, it would allow the state of California to create policy around what is in a child’s best interest, not the parent. While we all want kids to be safe and healthy, it is the parents decision, not the states, how to raise a child.  Real leadership is PARTNERING with parents to continually make children a priority and invest in our youth. It is NOT legislating away their rights and choices to the highest bidder or tax reform lobbyist.

The amendments to the bill have some unusual and sneaky language in them, which cause A Voice for Choice Advocacy to be concerned about the true intent of this SB18. They include:

– The Children’s Bill of Rights wording has been removed and will be introduced as a separate Senate Resolution, but is referenced in the bill. This is concerning for two reasons, 1) resolutions are passed quickly and without much overview from legislators because they do not have any statute or enforcement and 2) it circumvents the legislative bill process because resolutions do not require 72 hours notice for amendments and are not heard in committees. It is unheard of to include reference to a resolution in a bill because then the resolution becomes statute, but doing so Senator Pan and Common Sense Kids Action would sneak key language into the resolution, have it garner huge (perhaps even a unanimous) support, which allows them to claim momentum and unity of purpose.

– The main request of this bill being the formation of a committee is unusual and unnecessary because a committee can be created at the whim of the Senate Pro Tem (technically the Rules Committee) and a change to Senate Rules.  Joint committees just require approval of the joint rules by both houses. So putting a new legislative committee in a bill begs the question why? To which the answer is either that there is a different agenda that will become evident in later amendments or that there is no support from the Senate Pro Tem to put such a committee in place.

– The reference to tax code in the bill is also strange given that this is a bill supposedly about children, yet six out of seven points in the preamble of the bill (Section 18987.80) include detailed findings on California’s tax code and economic issues rather than child related issues. This is the greatest indicator that the real intention of this bill is not to address the needs of the children in California, but instead a huge tax reform bill that will prey upon the heart strings of the legislators, referencing the dire needs of our children to get it passed. Although, California’s tax code including, but not limited to Prop 13, sales, state and online taxation reform needs to be addressed, it should not be cloaked in our children’s future.

– The references in the bill now that stake the states claim on our children – “state’s children and youth” and “California’s children and youth”. This may be a semantic error, but we feel that it is very much a Freudian slip, in that Senator Pan and supporters of SB18 believe that the children of California belong to the state and not to their parents.

– The bill directs the committee to work with medical organizations involved in child health care, educational organizations and institutions, organizations in child development and welfare, and applicable state agencies and commissions to develop a plan for implementation of the “framework” the committee is tasked with creating. But where are the parents of these children in this development plan?  Nowhere! Again supporting the notion that the state knows how to raise children better than their parents. Are California Parents really doing such a poor job of raising their children that they need the state to intervene in every aspect of their lives? California already has tried and true programs for those parents who do need assistance for their children to get ahead.  Research has already been done to identify what societal and educational factors affect the success of a child the most.  Let’s not reinvent the wheel, wasting $25-40 billion of California’s already stretched budget on a law which will do more harm than good, and in the long run line the pockets of corporations rather than our children’s future.

Every parent has a different criteria of what they deem in the best interest of their child. This is not something the state has any right to define and mandate.  A parents right to raise their child as they see fit has been upheld in the US Supreme court on many occasions, but most recently by Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000

“The liberty interest . . . of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized. It is cardinal … that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. It cannot…be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” Id. at 65 (2000)

Any laws coming out of the proposed committee that question this are: UNNECESSARY – Over 500 welfare and institutions, health and safety, education, public health, penal and family codes already exist, that currently address all aspects of SB18’s so-called rights. UNCONSTITUTIONAL – Removes fundamental parental decision making.  According to the US Supreme Court (Troxel v. Granville), the parent-child relationship is a fundamental covenant and the parents’ role to provide children with shelter, sustenance, protection, love, medical treatment, direct educational selection, and to cultivate a successful societal experience – not the state.
THREATENING DIVERSITY – Creates a one size fits all state mandated plan for all California youth. California is built on the diversity of its people and a child’s upbringing, culture, and parents are the greatest influencers of that diversity. Low income families who are LGBTQIA+, religious, immigrant, special needs, or unique in any way will have to conform to SB18’s best practices and become an institutional society.

INTRUSIVE & OVERREACHING – SB18 Interferes in the parent-child relationship and grants rights that are fundamental.  It is not the role of teachers, doctors, the state, or the federal government to intervene in the parent child relationship unless absolutely necessary. Rather than creating an environment that educates and supports healthy choices, SB18 threatens freedom in the realms of education, health, and home.  Fundamental rights are those every person is born with, not written in the Constitution because they are so basic.  SB18 would give children more rights than any adult in the US. People (children and adults alike) are born with rights. It is a very dangerous precedent to allow the Government to state that they can “grant” anyone native rights.

A WASTE OF CALIFORNIA’S MONEY – Research into what allows a child to succeed to their highest ability has already been done. Just one example: “A broad, demographically-based look at the landscape of American families,” conducted by the Pew Research Center, “reveals stark parenting divides linked less to philosophies or values, and more to economic circumstances and changing family structure.”  http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/17/parenting-in-america/
UNFUNDED AND DEMANDING OF A TAX CODE OVERHAUL – The real cost of SB18 will be over $25 Billion and the real agenda of SB18 is not our children’s rights but tax reform, including third rail Prop 13, sales tax, income tax, online/grey market taxation.

The LA Times Editorial Board agrees, as can be read in their February 7, 2017 article: A Lofty – and troubling – proposed bill of rights for California kids.

Actions to Take:


1) Call you two CA legislators today and express your concern and ask for a meeting with your legislator asap. http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov
2) Nurture a relationship with your two CA legislators – go to their coffee mornings (all have them one a month) and talk to them.
3) Talk to all friends and family members about it and cause them to be outraged.  Everyone, especially parents, in CA should be in uproar about this, or at least one piece of it.
4) Please join those FaceBook groups that are applicable to you and request to add other people to them that also have mutual interests. Information will be cross posted here, but this way the focus of these issues can be discussed in greater detail:

Oppose SB18 – Health and Alternative Medicine Advocates (includes vaccines and GMO alternatives)
Oppose SB18 – Homeschoolers and Education Advocates
Oppose SB18 – Religious Advocates
Oppose SB18 – Responsible Gun Owners
Oppose SB18 – Special Needs/Education Advocates
Oppose SB18 – Responsible Alcohol, Tobacco and Marijuana Advocates
Oppose SB18 – LGBTQIA+ Advocates

5) Donate to A Voice for Choice (www.avoiceforchoice.org/donate) We have a huge amount going on in 2017 (SB277 lawsuit, vaccine education, new parent/moms childbirth education, doctor outreach, just to name a few), and with this addition, Christina plans to be in Sacramento at least 2-3 times a month lobbying for you.  These donations will NOT fund her (she doesn’t take any of the donations raised. Her time and expenses are all paid by her). She is just one person and so in order for her to do the work that needs to be done on the Advocacy side, A Voice for Choices needs a small professional team to support the day to day educational, secretarial, social media, etc. needs. Please donate as much as you can either in a one time or ongoing donation. Just $15 a month would give us $180 a year.  If we got that from each of our supporters be able to do more amazing things. We will be at the forefront of this in 2017 and we need your commitment to that.

Bill Details:

 

This bill is sponsored by Common Sense Media (https://www.commonsensemedia.org/kids-action/blog/kicking-off-the-right-start-town-halls) and is similar to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the US has not yet ratified.  http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

Bill Text: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201620170SB218

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1.
Chapter 12.88 (commencing with Section 18987.80) is added to Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read:
CHAPTER  12.88. Committee on Children and Youth
18987.80.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) California has the sixth largest economy in the world and leads the country in innovation and diversity, and yet California’s children rank 47th in terms of their economic well-being.

(b) Accessible child care, early learning, quality educational and job training opportunities, comprehensive health care, and well-supported families are necessary to ensure the productive potential of all Californians, yet there has been no comprehensive effort to ensure that California’s children and youth have access to those necessities and opportunities.

(c) California’s tax structure was designed during the Great Depression and is outdated, unfair, and unreliable, with newer economic sectors escaping tax obligations.

(d) According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the total value of taxable sales has grown more slowly than the economy, necessitating higher sales tax rates to generate comparable revenue.

(e) The increasing volatility of the state’s economy, and the stock market, has translated into greater unpredictability of state tax revenue, presenting challenges for budget forecasts.

(f) According to the California State Library, the Legislature considered 4,600 tax proposals in the past two decades, the vast majority of which were directed at a single tax or group of taxpayers rather than to achieve comprehensive reform, demonstrating that fiscal necessity, rather than overarching policy considerations, has prompted most recent major tax changes.

(g) It is necessary to increase revenue predictability and to ensure sufficiency of revenues adequate to meet the needs of California’s children and youth.
18987.81.

(a) The Joint Legislative Committee on Children and Youth is hereby created.

(b) The committee shall be composed of a total of 18 members, as follows:

(1) Nine Members of the Senate, appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules.

(2) Nine Members of the Assembly, appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly.

(c) The committee and its members shall have and exercise all of the rights, duties, and powers conferred upon investigating committees and their members by the Joint Rules of the Senate and the Assembly as they are adopted and amended from time to time.

(d) The committee is authorized to act only until November 30, 2024, and on that date the committee’s existence shall terminate.
18987.82.

(a) The Senate Committee on Rules may make money available from the Senate Operating Fund, as it deems necessary, for the expenses of the committee and its members. Any expenditure of money shall be made in compliance with policies set forth by the Senate Committee on Rules and shall be subject to the approval of the Senate Committee on Rules.

(b) The committee, within 15 days of authorization and consistent with the normal annual appropriation process for funding legislative committees, shall present its initial budget to the Senate Committee on Rules for its review, comment, and approval.
18987.83.

(a) (1) The committee shall develop “California’s Promise to its Children and Youth,” a framework for the care and welfare of the state’s children and youth in various contexts, including, but not limited to, health care, nutrition, homeless assistance, education, and foster care, to serve as an example to other states by raising the standard of living for California’s children and youth.

(2) The committee shall consider Senate Concurrent Resolution No. __, the Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of California, if it is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2018, for purposes of developing the framework described in paragraph (1).

(b) By November 30, 2020, in consultation with medical organizations involved in child health care, educational organizations and institutions, organizations in child development and welfare, and applicable state agencies and commissions, the committee shall develop a plan to implement the framework by January 1, 2024.

(c) By November 30, 2020, in consultation with experts and organizations in tax reform, academia, research institutes, business, labor, local government, the Franchise Tax Board, the State Board of Equalization, and applicable state agencies and commissions, the committee shall identify and propose comprehensive tax reform solutions to increase revenue predictability and ensure sufficiency of revenues adequate to support the implementation of the framework, for presentation to the Legislature and, if necessary, to the voters of California.

(d) At the close of each legislative session, the committee shall submit a report to the Legislature of the committee’s activities.
18987.84.
This chapter shall become inoperative on November 30, 2024, and, as of January 1, 2025, is repealed.